3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children,5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

–Titus 2:3-5 NIV

Emma Gray with the Huffington Post has another* post up titled The Truth About Sluts. In the post she interviews feminist author Leora Tanenbaum, who admits something feminists have long been in denial of; the word slut can’t be reclaimed.

My central argument is that it doesn’t matter what the intent of the name-caller is, because the result is always negative. It always leads to policing and judgment and shame, even when the initial intent is lighthearted or neutral.

The problem with trying to reclaim the word is it has real meaning. While sluts have the power of being desired, only a foolish man would fall in love with a slut. Sluts are in this narrow sense unlovable, not to mention unfit to marry. As a result, even hard core sex positive feminists fear being labeled either directly or indirectly as a slut. As Tanenbaum explains, this creates a dilemma for women as they compete for men’s attention:

Digital culture and social media have ramped up this unspoken rule of femininity: You’re always supposed to be sexy, but you’re not supposed to be slutty. And today we’re all living in this world of wall-to-wall surveillance. When your female body is being tagged, tracked, liked, it creates all this pressure to present yourself as this sexy — yet never slutty — person.

…

You don’t wanna be a prude and you don’t wanna be a slut. It’s really impossible. We are evaluated and judged through a sexual prism no matter what we do. Either we’re not sexual enough or we’re too sexual.

The problem for modern women is that feminists have succeeded in destroying the very protection they now crave. In the past, older women like Yiayia enforced the rules of modesty. Now older women are more likely to shop at Forever 21 than do or say anything to police modesty. While Yiayia’s rules of modesty might seem arbitrary, change some from one culture to another, and even change some over time, what mattered was that the rules were clear. This is essential because young women naturally compete with one another for sexual attention, and knowing the exact location of the line between good girl and slut is required in order for them to effectively compete.

In a sense this isn’t all that different than auto racing. While NASCAR, IndyCar, Formula 1, etc. have different rules about what is permitted, what matters is that the rules are understood. In order to compete effectively you have to go right up to the line but not over it. But with modesty there are no longer any clear rules. Each woman finds herself trying to go up to what appears to be the line based on what the other women around her are doing. This has been going on for several decades, and not surprisingly it has resulted in a continuous drift of what is deemed acceptable. Yet what seems like a rule is an illusion. Without Yiayia defining and policing the rules the only rules are the laws of indecency, and even these are somewhat subjective.

While the rules of modesty are undefined, one of the clear rules of women’s intrasexual competition is that women can’t be seen as overtly competing for men’s sexual attention. As Tanenbaum explains:

…femininity is all about “effortless perfection.” The slut is somebody who never understood that or understands it and is disregarding it. She’s being sexy in a way that is considered overt or too attention-seeking.

…young women have to walk on this razor-thin tightrope to not be a prude, not be a slut, be sexy but just the right amount, not show that they’re exerting any effort — you just woke up looking sexy in this very understated way.

Like other aspects of women’s sexuality, misdirection and denial are critical when competing for men’s sexual attention.

Modern Christian Modesty: The Empress’s New Clothes

All of this is in play not just for feminists, but for modern Christian women as well. They are also compelled to compete while denying they are competing, and lack any clear set of rules on what is permitted and what is slutty. However, for modern Christian women the stakes are higher, and as a result the level of denial is higher. This is why the issue of modesty is such a radioactive topic with Christian women. Any discussion of modesty by Christians carries an implicit but generally unintended charge that the woman who is being immodest is a slut. The unspoken rule is:

Good girls don’t advertise the goods; only sluts do that!

This leads to all sorts of rationalizations for why modern Christian women (just like women in the larger culture) wear revealing clothing. The hamsters start spinning, and anyone who references modesty is treated to a stern lecture about how Christian women are entirely unaware that the outfit they chose looks sexy, because they dress strictly for practicality and/or comfort. They have no idea you can see down their low cut blouse, that you can see everything with the yoga pants they are wearing, or that their strategically placed rhinestone cross directs men’s eyes to their rear end. This is of course nonsense, and is proven by the first thing every woman does when she puts on a pair of pants; she checks to see how her butt looks in them.

Christian blogger Veronica Partridge inadvertently set off a firestorm last month when she announced her decision to stop wearing yoga pants and leggings in public. As she explained in her follow up post:

These past few weeks have been shocking, to say the least. I have weathered the most hateful comments of my life. People have called me a countless number of names, some I can’t even repeat. Women have talked about my husband with graphic sexuality asking for favors and soliciting their bodies to him.

What Partridge hadn’t anticipated is that by announcing that she was choosing to be more modest she instantly put women who didn’t follow this rule on the wrong side of the good girl/slut line. She poked the anthill and the ants came out stinging. This is true even though she took great pains to explain that this was her personal decision, and not something she expected other women to follow.

Partridge couldn’t anticipate this because she was in denial of what was really going on. In her mind she wasn’t wearing revealing clothing to compete with other women for men’s sexual attention. In her first post she explains that she originally struggled to believe that wearing this kind of revealing clothing had any impact on men (emphasis mine):

Was it possible my wearing leggings could cause a man, other than my husband, to think lustfully about my body? I asked my husband his thoughts on the matter when he got home. I appreciated his honesty when he told me, “yeah, when I walk into a place and there are women wearing yoga pants everywhere, it’s hard to not look. I try not to, but it’s not easy.”

…

Sure, if a man wants to look, they are going to look, but why entice them? Is it possible that the thin, form-fitting yoga pants or leggings could make a married (or single) man look at a woman in a way he should only look at his wife?

While Partridge deserves to be commended for going against the grain and doing the right thing, her level of denial here is breathtaking. She had no idea that these pants showed off everything and therefore caused men to notice her. She didn’t stop wearing them to repent of her own sin of desiring inappropriate sexual attention, she merely wants to avoid tempting those dirty men into sinning. Interestingly though in her follow on post she notes that other women do indeed wear leggings to get sexual attention (emphasis mine):

…To men, the clearer the woman’s form to their eyes, the more sexually stimulated they are. In my opinion, this is also one of the reasons why leggings have become so popular. Women have naturally noticed more male eyes in their direction when wearing form-fitting leggings. This has reinforced their choice to wear them more often. At the biological level, this is normal…

…when a man can see the outline of a woman’s butt, or her underwear line, or even the outline of her vagina, their sexual stimulation naturally increases.

In my experience, many women wear leggings that show such details…

The fundamental problem is not that men like to look at women’s bodies and women like to have their bodies looked at. This is as Partridge explains natural. Just like anything else, there are proper expressions of these natural desires. A man should direct his desire to look toward his wife’s body and avoid indulging it with other women. Likewise, a woman should direct her desire to have her body looked at toward her husband, and not other men. The problem we have is the modern Christian blind spot to women’s temptation to sin, combined with women’s vehement denial of their own desire for sexual attention. As a result, we have a comical pattern where whenever anyone points out that something is immodest, the immediate retort is that the person who pointed this out wouldn’t have noticed if they hadn’t been looking. Only a pervert would notice such a thing.

Custody of the eyes has gone from a reminder to men to avoid sin, to a cover for women to indulge in the counterpart sin. You have to admit this is a deviously clever tool to silence all discussion of modesty. Yet the problem remains. Without a defined line of modesty women will drift towards all out nakedness in their competition for sexual attention, and there is no line they can point to proving that they are one of the good girls. Large numbers of women are now in both a literal and figurative sense naked, and the only thing covering them is the cultural taboo against acknowledging it.

148 Responses to Yiayia and the empress’s new clothes

“Custody of the eyes has gone from a reminder to men to avoid sin, to a cover for women to indulge in the counterpart sin.”
Very true.

Men can’t not look, the reptilian brain won’t allow it, a sexual display is a sexual display not matter how you square it. Now the question is why would a woman in a monogamous relationship sexually display to strangers….hmmm.

Reminded me of a story about an Egyptian monk who claimed he conquered lust, his abbot asked him what would he do if a naked woman was present, he replied he would struggle not to look. The abbot reminded him that struggling and overcoming were not the same thing and that the struggle continued until the grave.

“As a result, we have a comical pattern where whenever anyone points out that something is immodest, the immediate retort is that the person who pointed this out wouldn’t have noticed if they hadn’t been looking. Only a pervert would notice such a thing.”
This is superb schoolboy logic-chopping on a “He who smelt it,dealt it!” level.
Seriously, no. Somebody laid an egg in this elevator, and your watering eyes betray all protestations of ignorance, girls.

:Digital culture and social media have ramped up this unspoken rule of femininity: You’re always supposed to be sexy, but you’re not supposed to be slutty.”

They talk about this as if it’s impossible, even though women managed to do it 50 years ago. Are they saying Maureen O’Hara in The Quiet Man wasn’t sexy, or was slutty? Ridiculous.

Not only is it possible, it’s not even difficult. Put on a damn dress or skirt, so it’ll flow with and hint at your figure instead of simply exposing it. Cover your cleavage. We’re thoroughly aware of your breasts at all times (yes, even small ones under thick clothing); you don’t need to slap us in the face with them. Wear your hair long and learn to put it up when appropriate. Smile. Don’t be afraid to bat your eyes at the right guy. Use a little makeup — nothing fancy, just the kind of thing you can touch up in a few minutes. Wear heels when appropriate. If you’ve ever been told how independent, feisty, sassy, or tough you are, look up the word “demure” and try to incorporate it into your attitude.

There: a complete program for being as sexy as your natural attributes will allow, without being slutty. No charge.

Outstanding insights, Dalrock. In addition to my work with millennial men, I am encouraging my wife to be purposeful in befriending millennial women to fulfill the vital Titus 2 role. It takes time, but it will be worth it.

That statement is political suicide. David Moore might get away with that in rural Montana, but in most states that representative would be tossed out of office; labeled a misogynist enabler of the”Patriarchy”.

It would be less damaging politically to call himself a ‘Muslim’ than to dare challenge the ‘Feminine Imperative’ and tell women ‘they can’t wear yoga pants.’

Oh yeah just what we need another freakin law. Especially one that makes a victimless act a crime. And we wonder why the Nanny state is so pervasive. Its thanks in large measure to twits like this guy who by dent of their position feel this impetus to act as the moral enforcer for all that is right and good.

The Yoga Pantriarchy!
But the root is “we’re supposed to be sexy!”. Who in the hell (the likely origin of the message) said that?!

This is a bit like saying “what is wrong with nazi swastikas, shouldn’t the jews just look away”?

Even the Courts have distinguished between incitements and expression. When the single purpose of speech is to cause violence or panic (fire in a theatre) or extend it to lust, and has no other purpose (scientific, artistic, etc.), it isn’t protected.

And … Why women, even really smart ones, ought to avoid STEM:
(no really, I can’t even begin to properly describe the … well, just click it)http://www.zoedoubleday.com/?page_id=322
Maybe she uses a Skirt Look Up Table.
The only thing worse than a rationalization hamster is a really smart one.

Note that this was 1934!

In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking.
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.
Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes.

I think you missed the mark on this one, Dal. Like all women, here only concern is HER. She’s worried about hubby looking at other women with lsut in his eyes and a bulge in his pants. Because, solipism.

Sexual Competition Sabotage
Examples:“She’s a ‘slut’ – he’s a ‘fag’” and the sub-communications in the terminology.

Catty remarks, gossip, feminine communication methodologies

This convention is the reputation destroyer and it’s easy to observe this in the field. Since it also serves a woman attention needs, it is among the most socially acceptable and widely flaunted, however the foundations and latent purpose of this convention takes some consideration to understand.

When women employ gossip it comes natural since it is an emotional form of communication (men have a far lower propensity to use gossip), but the purpose of it is meant to disqualify a potential sexual competitor. In terms of female to female gossip this satisfies the attention need, but when men are brought into the salaciousness it becomes a qualification tool. By saying a woman is a “slut”, the sub-communication is, “she sleeps with a lot of guys and is therefore ineligible as a candidate deserving of a man’s long term provisioning capacity, due to her obvious inability to remain loyal to any one, individual male.” This then becomes the ultimate weapon in influencing a man’s (long term) sexual selection.

I’ll also add that this breeding sabotage isn’t limited to just women though. What’s the first thing most men are apt to say about another, anonymous, extremely attractive male? “He’s probably a fag.” Men have learned this convention from women, they sexually disqualify a man in the most complete way possible; “this guy might be as attractive as a GQ model, but he would never breed with a woman and is therefore disqualified as a suitor for your intimacy.”

Men don’t not “slut shame” (and particularly these days) by anything comparable to the order of magnitude with which women do because sexual disqualification is their primary psychological weapon in intrasexual combat. However, the misdirect is to primarily blame men for slut shaming so as to keep that combat out of his direct awareness.

Furthermore the “slut weapon” is also used as an attempt to shame a man into modifying his interpretations of women and to sexually prefer a physically suboptimal woman over a hotter one she can’t hope to compete against.

“Only sluts look like that, you don’t like sluts do you? I thought you were different.”

I wrote about this topic on my blog just the other day, as a woman, speaking to women.

But this line of yours…
“She didn’t stop wearing them to repent of her own sin of desiring inappropriate sexual attention, she merely wants to avoid tempting those dirty men into sinning.”
Ouch! Conviction really stings.
Thank you for speaking the truth!

bear @ 7:48 pm:
“Oh yeah just what we need another freakin law. Especially one that makes a victimless act a crime. And we wonder why the Nanny state is so pervasive. Its thanks in large measure to twits like this guy who by dent of their position feel this impetus to act as the moral enforcer for all that is right and good.”

Indecency laws are a legitimate purpose of gov’t. Without an enforced standard of dress, there’s nothing to stop a shameless slut from parading naked in front of your kids. Where the line should be drawn is open to debate, which makes the matter best suited to state/local gov’t, but a line must be drawn. That’s the very point Dalrock is making here.

And don’t tell us Christians that women wearing provocative clothes is a victimless crime.

God’s best to this Mr. Moore. I can’t usually say that about a politician.

Think there is some confusion because they are mostly mindless, they look in the mirror to check if their butt matches the standard displayed by the other women, they aren’t really conscious of most men, they will even dress their little daughters in sexy styles. Of course the fashion exists because it suits their enjoyment of attention, but they have only one response when the hive is disturbed

The mantra ‘If you’ve got it, flaunt it” comes to mind here though some of those who absolutely don’t have it flaunt it anyway (see- People of Walmart). Truth is never has having ‘it’ been so powerful for the small minority of women who actually do have it in Fat Land USA. With an obesity rate over half and clinically overweight near 3/4 among women imagine the the temptation of a young woman who is just basically fit to achieve near supermodel status in the eyes of young alphas just by displaying her body. The power must feel exhilarating.

Thanks for the link, and I’m glad you addressed Partridge’s posts here where they would get more exposure. (Hey-o!)

I am not surprised to see that there are already several pro-slut/anti-yiayia comments from men pretending to understand and explain a systemically confused and disordered organism as if it were an intricate and delicate machine.

Headline in yesterday’s Times ‘Two-Fifths of teen girls say they were forced or pressured to have sex’. I presumed that meant that Two-Fifths of Teen girls were acting dressing Slutty and Prick-Teasing.

Are these girls dimwitted? Seriously… they asked for the power to determine what to wear, and yet don’t know what turns guys on? Yea, colour me unimpressed, girls know exactly what they’re doing. They know exactly what turns men on or not. There are quite a few ‘Christian’ girl facebook pages with selfies and sexy pics with little ‘suntan’ hearts half a millimeter away from you know what…

There is such a demand in society by men seeking fat women that businesses have been developed in order to meet it, but there is no similar demand on the part of fit women (or one not sufficient enough to register) seeking overweight men.
Why do you suppose this is? There has never been a ‘rubenesque’ period for Men – where overweight men were considered the feminine ideal – in history.
A muscular athletic build has always been the masculine standard… looks count, looks matter.
What I find amazingly ironic is that looks are one of the few areas of change that a Man has direct control over – his body.
Barring physical disabilities, you have no excuse not to be in better shape.
Why wouldn’t you want the full package? Stop being so… lazy and accept that you’ll need to exert some effort and sweat to make yourself more attractive and more arousing to women.

Men lose their sex drive primarily because they let themselves go.
Men become obese.
It doesn’t have to be that way.

I spent most of 2014 in inpatient care recovering from injuries doctors said were impossible to recover from. That hasn’t stopped me from rebuilding my body despite the losses.

Rollo is correct, there’s no excuse not to be in better shape. Most men in the U S are obese. Set yourself apart.

When you are the man that has built his body, she’s going to want to display the sexy clothes for you only.

Regarding the off topic video train wreck – that is amazing. Slut finds clueless beta who is doctor? What a dream come true. But pretty sure doctor at that level could do better. Just remember girls Prince Charming will show up when the time is right.

Oh yoga pants. My wife wears them to the gym. This gives me serious reason to think maybe we should abandon them in our home.

There: a complete program for being as sexy as your natural attributes will allow, without being slutty. No charge.

Yeah, but that won’t work, don’t you know, you damned privileged white male! In case you didn’t notice, all average men are sleazebags just looking for easy sex and pining for the same few hot sluts, overlooking plain maidens! So those have no other choice but to compete! It’s just terrible!

He’s been doing that type of movie for years. Slut meets some schlubby man, add some sex and gross humor, and walla another 90 minute waste of time. Although he must be getting desperate to find people to act in them if LeBron and John Cena are involved.

…young women have to walk on this razor-thin tightrope to not be a prude, not be a slut, be sexy but just the right amount,…

In other words, these women have to demonstrate self control, patience, self respect, responsibility, and an understanding of the male psyche. Seems like too much to ask of the women who would mold the next generation.

I think women don’t try to look better just for men, they want to be superior to the next-door woman.

It is an intrasexual competition. They are competing with other women. But attention from men, especially the right men, is at the core of the competition. You can’t really separate the two. It isn’t just about men, and it isn’t just about status within the herd.

Much as I like some well fitting yoga pants on a fit young woman, what I miss is the femininity displayed by a simple sundress or similar. Maybe I’m just old, but I put yoga pants in the “slut” category and dresses in the “feminine” category. The first may snag a PUA, but regular displays of femininity can snag a husband.

I think women don’t try to look better just for men, they want to be superior to the next-door woman.

As Dalrock points out, it’s not mutually exclusive. The internal mechanisms that create a drive can be complex. The subjective experience of having a drive doesn’t alway reveal to a person the purpose of that drive.

The classic example would be sex itself – the purpose of having a sex drive, biologically speaking, is reproduction. But babies are the last thing on most people’s minds when under the influence of lust. They just become fixated on certain sights, smells, sounds, and behaviors and their responses to them.

The dissonance is less extreme in most other cases, but the same effect occurs. Men are often drawn to compete in athletics, especially in their teens, just because it feels good to compete in that way. That their competing serves as a sort of combat training, and as a sexual display if victorious, isn’t behind the drive – although observing the correlation will, of course, create a virtuous feedback loop that further reinforces the behavior.

I think something similar is going on with women and their sexual displays. They are driven to compete with each other based on appearance – how well they decorate themselves and preserve their reputations – and they know not why, strictly speaking. But the correlation is very clear in lived experience, so it only takes half a brain to learn what the score is by your early teens. But as we’ve noted, women’s sexuality requires covert communication. Pointing it out to them ruins the game.

What we’re seeing now is kinda the reverse-gender equivalent to it being socially acceptable for me to tackle some guy in a bar on some flimsy pretense (‘he was looking at me funny’) and mop up the resulting female attention. And then, if a woman questioned my motives for getting into an easy fight or two every weekend, I could scream at them about how they were repressing my freedom.

Immodesty goes hand in hand with a lack of femininity. Women now use their mere physical bodies to convey their identity as women. I’m a woman because I have a female body. Now I can set myself free from having to display any feminine behavior. I’ve noticed this in contexts where there are women from a more traditional culture, dressed up in more traditional outfits, and there are a few white women attending as well. The women from the traditional culture look gorgeous, whereas the white women look ugly in comparison. This is despite how attractive their bodies are. You find your eye is drawn to them, as to something shocking and out of place, but simultaneously repulsed. What the other women achieve through elegance, poise, and grace, they achieve through the brute display of their flesh, with a little bit of fabric wrapped around it.

Immodesty and sexual aggression are not attractive in women. They are unfeminine.

To take a big stride towards GBFM (shudder), this is a Keynesian problem. The market is broken and we’ve lost price discovery. The feminists have traded in the gold of modesty for the fiat currency of sexual revolution. This has resulted in N-count inflation and the debasement of the female currency.

The bottom line: you live in a fallen world. People who do not know their Creator, do not know their purpose, value, meaning in God’s eyes. They are lost. Who cares what the “feminists” preach. You can only control what your eyes choose to look at, and yes, you can have conversations with your own wife about what is or isn’t appropriate to wear.

This whole business of trying to basically argue that women are the ones largely responsible for the existence of lust in the world due to their inner need to be sexually desirable really reads like an effort to excuse men from their own wickedness in their hearts. We’re all toast without the grace and forgiveness of God. Freely you have received that grace and forgiveness, and so freely you should also give it…

Instead of deconstructing everything you feel is wrong about “Feminism”, whether outside or inside the church, try introducing people to JESUS instead, and let Him take the reigns…..

Don’t read too much into “Trainwreck”. Its writer/star, Amy Schumer,has the comic persona of the sex-pozzie twenty-something who doesn’t want to commit and then gets mad when no one wants to commit. She is aware of the inherent contradictions and mines them for jokes. May not be your cup of tea, or your idea of a funny movie, but it’s no cultural bellwether, just a movie-length version of her Comedy Central sketch show along the same lines.

This whole business of trying to basically argue that women are the ones largely responsible for the existence of lust in the world due to their inner need to be sexually desirable really reads like an effort to excuse men from their own wickedness in their hearts.

I wrote nothing of the sort. What I wrote was that men have one temptation/desire, and women another. We shouldn’t ignore either. You want to ignore one, however, so you make the entirely baseless accusation that this is what I’m doing.

…I notice that Scottish women almost always wear tights or leggings, with or without a short skirt over of them. I have to say… that is quite becoming on slender women, which you seem to have a much higher percentage of than we do here…

I don’t see as much of that where I live, but that may be because of where in the U.S. I live. On the other hand, my wife and I switched gyms a few months ago, and there are a lot of young women at the new place. The vast majority of them wear yoga pants when they work out. And since the only people who go to gyms are ones who are at least somewhat serious about their physique, it can be pretty… distracting. The fat chicks aren’t on treadmills: they’re at McDonald’s, or waddling around at Walmart.

(If a woman wears a floppy shirt that’s long enough to cover her butt, the effect is greatly diminished, but most of them also wear tight shirts that they tuck in, or that only reach to their waist.)

One can debate whether it is immodest for women to wear stuff like that in front of men at all, or one can maintain that it’s okay in a gym setting, but clearly our standards for modesty have changed when that’s considered normal for everyday wear. It IS provocative, and it’s meant to be. Woman can protest all they want that they’re dressing for themselves, or for comfort, but that’s mostly BS – they know what they’re doing, they know the effect it has on men, and that’s why they do it: sexual validation from men and an edge in the intersexual competition they have with other women. A lot of women seem to really crave “the male gaze” – despite what (mostly ugly) feminists say about it.

Instead of deconstructing everything you feel is wrong about “Feminism”, whether outside or inside the church, try introducing people to JESUS instead, and let Him take the reigns…..

I could see this chide being directed at Jesus when He warns Thyatira about tolerating Jezebel. Just replace Jezebel for “Feminism”. They are practically synonymous.

It is a catch all statement designed to distract us from the fact that he has no argument. Have no meaningful argument? Tell someone they need to shut up and let Jesus take the reigns. I can’t imagine it works anywhere but in the mind of the person using the tactic.

This whole business of trying to basically argue that women are the ones largely responsible for the existence of lust in the world due to their inner need to be sexually desirable really reads like an effort to excuse men from their own wickedness in their hearts. We’re all toast without the grace and forgiveness of God. Freely you have received that grace and forgiveness, and so freely you should also give it…

Cop out, sure, I’ll shine a big, bright light in your face. Don’t blink! It’s not that women are the absolute cause of lust, it’s the problem that they are doing little to decrease the temptation men will face when near them. What women have done is to shift, what would be the mutual burden of modesty and decorum, totally onto men.

If men went to Church dressed in nothing but boxers, what would the Churches’ reaction be? What would womens’ reaction be?

Women’s (slutty) attire…. so much of our culture now associates this (slut if she wears this here, NOT a slut if she wears this there) with location, location, location. And I’ll admit, I am guilty of doing so. Now that may not be Christlike, but it IS my sin. So what exactly am I talking about (with respect to location) that Dalrock’s YaiYai would be talking about?

Ever go to the beach? Forget about the yoga pants and the camel toe at the gym, you ever see a thong bikini? I have. Too many. I owned a week of timesharing in a very small resort right on Daytona Beach Shores just a few years ago. I’d take my friends down every year, that was like our March Madness vacation. We’d go down, lay on the beach, drink frozen pina coladas all week, drive to Red Sox spring training games, and watch college hoops, it was great. But at 9AM every morning, we were out on my balcony that overlooked the beach and the pool and gazed at all the thong bikinis for ladies who were tanning. Many of these ladies (I’m sure) were good Christian girls on vacation. Never once did I think they were sluts because where they were wearing these skimpy, slutty undergarments, was location appropriate. Location.

You guys ever been on a cruise? A week long cruise, maybe to Alaska, the Caribbean, Mexican Rivera? I’ve been many times both with just my wife and our whole family. If it is a full week (or at least, 6 days) you will have no less than TWO dress-up-nights (where you and 3000 of your shipmates wander around the ship and take all sorts of pictures.) And lets be clear what dress-up on a cruise ship means, you are keeping score. Everyone wears their BEST clothes, for the men a suit is minimum but tuxedos are commonplace (sometimes with tails.) Men don’t even dress that well for church! But on the ship they do because their wives insist upon it (they are SHOWING OFF their husbands.) How do the Christian wives, the girlfriends and (sadly) even the teen-aged daughters dress? The women/wives over 35 wear full length sequin gowns (with complete bare backs, no bras) with high-heeled, strappy, slutty shoes, and if under 35, short-short skits, tighty-tight blouses up top to exagerate their cleavage (and their bossoms are all just about hanging out), they completely slut it up. That is how the women on the ship keep score with each other. But never once did this bother me because we are on a cruise ship, everyone has at least a little bit of money because they paid for a cruise ticket, almost everyone is married, these women are not whores, they are just on vacation, and these women NEVER really get to wear these kinds of clothes, anywhere else. Location.

I guess what I’m trying to say is so often in life, we regard women’s attire (slut vs non-slut) based on the location where she wears it. If she walking down Van Buren Street in Phoenix or wandering aimlessly in an Indian casino and she dresses like a slut, yup, she’s a slut. If she’s on a beach, or on a cruise ship, or just working out at the gym with the yoga pants, from a sluttiness standpoint, I give her a pass. And why? Her attire is appropriate for the location. Now maybe (as I said) this is sin on my part, but I am mature enough to understand that her attire (in those locations) is not done in anyway to illicit a response such that I would want to “purchase her” for the night (or an hour.) And maybe what she is doing is not Christlike because she knows men will gaze upon her body the way David did Bathshebba, but society is still going to say its appropriate based on the location.

@ Gurney
If that girl gets to be the star of a movie, then my turn must be coming up soon. To think that the same thread contains a reference to Maureen O’Hara and whats-her-face proves that on the internetz anything is possible.

I’ve heard that before about the clothing and the location. But some girls wear modest swimwear and some don’t. Some of them don’t use the location excuse as an excuse to not be modest.

Even one-piece bathing suits (for women) are still a little slutty. Its not exactly “modest” when I can still go out and buy the exact right bra-size for every girl by my pool that is wearing even a “modest” bathing suit. But location is important. Women have no business wearing sleveless, bare-backed, sequin gowns and slut shoes to church. That would be inappropriate. On a cruise ship, standard operating procedure.

Why was Veronica Partridge surprised? I predicted that reaction the instant I read the article. There is no such thing as a “personal” standard of modesty. That term only has meaning in relation to other people. Someone by themselves is being neither modest nor immodest, regardless of what they are wearing. Society has standards of modesty, not individuals, and these standards are time, place, and context specific.You can’t really say “For me, personally, I have decided everyone who dresses this way looks like a prostitute, but I don’t expect other people to share my opinions”

I find attempts to nail down what is or is not modest generally unhelpful. Christians obviously should not dress more revealingly than the world and obviously should not dress with the intention of causing others to lust after you – though it is easy to tell yourself this is not the case.Standards are set by the society around you. Were all women in Minoan Society (where the breasts were left bare) guilty of immodesty? All women in a tribe wearing nothing but grass skirts guilty? If they were, it was for failing to adhere to a standard of which they knew nothing. This is of course possible (we commit many sins of which we are unaware), but it would have made all the arguments and exhortations over how long the grass skirt should be to avoid the sin of immodesty look rather silly. Maybe we will get to heaven and find out that every one who wasn’t wearing a burka was sinning. How foolish our arguments over yoga pants vs jeans will appear to us in retrospect.

These modesty discussions always shed more heat than light. Everyone feels not only qualified, but compelled to comment (myself included, naturally). There is endless scope for self righteousness (look how virtuous I am being in how I dress! Not like you sinners) and endless scope to accuse others of self righteousness and legalism (only pharisees care how long a mini skirt is!) If I were Obama, in between these two caricatured extremes I would now position my own eminently reasonably sounding solution, but I have none.

I will say I encourage people not to spend to much time arguing this issue, for the reasons above, and because I don’t think it is even in the top 5, maybe not even top 10, issues facing the church. It will do the church little good to have impeccably modest dress standards if it has failed to hold the line on abortion adultery divorce homosexuality women pastors, etc.

I will say the yardstick cannot be “immodest attire is that which causes a man to sin with his eyes” as obviously men are responsible for their own actions and quite capable of lusting after women no matter how modestly they are dressed.

Obviously women’s dress has an influence, but saying “modest clothing is that which is no more likely to cause someone to sin than whatever everyone else is wearing” sounds very wishy washy and insufficiently strict.

Context is also important. A woman is more likely to catch a man’s eye in a bathing suit, however modest, than in a fur parka, but presumably we do not wish to command our young people to swim in fur parkas.

There is such an unparalleled temptation to use these discussions as a vehicle for self righteousness that is not present to the same degree in other discussions. Bearing in mind the admonition to not cause others to stumble, I would hesitate to bring something like this up in a church (it is fine on a blog like this, where people are less likely to take it personally). It is possible the sin generatef by these arguments exceeds the sin averted by Christian women dressing more modestly, partucularly when you consider there will always be immodestly dressed worldly women to cause your eyes to stray, even if all Christian women were sewn up in sacks of potatoes. It is also true that we do not need to be ashamed of, or try to hide, the sexual nature of our bodies. I do not think it is necessarily wrong to derive joy from observing one of the more pleasantly formed of God’s creations.

In closing I must also point out that one of the prime temptations in these discussions is to paint oneself as a noble sage,looking down dispassionately upon the excesses of the fray, wisely advising others to avoud sinning…as I myself have essentially done here.

Would there be a modesty controversy if the latest fashion trend were for well tanned, well muscled men with six-pack abs to walk around shirtless in public at Starbucks or Target or to pick up their kids from school? Would there be an outcry among women for those men to ‘cover up’ because they were tempting women into lustful thoughts about men who aren’t their husbands?

Or would they say nothing and pretend like they weren’t looking at these men? Would they become defensive and indignant at the suggestion? Would they say “Hey turnabout is fair play, we can enjoy it if men do”?

You see the modesty thing is exactly the type of old school prefabricated “outrage” every woman and man with an equalitarian mindset loves, loves, to get their fur up about. In equal-world men and women are functionally the same just with different fiddly bits in their underwear. That being the baseline it should follow that men should be responsible for the same biology and stimulus cues women are. If you can’t control your erection at the sight of a woman’s ass and camel toe in a pair of yoga pants, well that’s just a character flaw of men.

The fact that men (and women) have biologically evolved arousal prompts for the opposite sex conflicts with an equalist ideology. Men’s prompts are perverse and a sign of weakness of his self-control, women’s are empowering and a sign of her resisting ‘social norms’ that have historically repressed her sexuality.

IBB,
Correct, and not correct.
The context affects what you are wearing — and this applies to men when swimming as well (or do serious swimmers in the US not wear speedos?)
Any man learns to look at the eyeline in these places. Besides, that girl in the yoga pants is upside down, with a very red face. pushing weights, not looking feminine. The people I know form my Gym I have difficulty recognizing on the street when they are wearing professional clothes and their work makeup.
Evening dress (the formal balls on a boat) has always been about peacocking.
[Young woman, if you want to wear Lulumon or that miniskirt, you better be skinny or fit, because ALL YOUR FLAWS SHOW,. The older clothing styles flattered more women because the hid more flaws. And yes, men notice both]
But the fact that the female herd considers clothes made so you can turn yourself into a pretzel as street attire indicates that they consider femaile bodies commodities. And that is not correct.

My wife has started wearing the one-piece type of swimsuit with the built-in “skirt” part. I have no idea what it is called. This is a radical departure from what passes as swimwear nowadays. I think she looks as cute as they come wearing this.

Several men have noticed and commented to me, “your wife obviously cares about modesty and class.”

Scott that is great that she is wearing a bathing suit like that, great that the men have commented to you in that way. And that is good. Unfortunately, that is NOT what women think of other women who wear the bathing suit with the built-in “skirt” part. I know what they are thinking because I have had girlfriends who have told me (whenever they have seen it) and I’m not going to tell you.

As I started reading this post, my mind immediately recalled a column at Boundless Collin Woodard entitled: ‘Your Turn: Lust and Leggings’ about which I commented at Just4Guys. He writes:

‘As groups of guys friends gather at my house…there is one conversation that I can always count on to eventually come up: leggings as pants. In short, Christian men are very much against leggings as pants. What often starts as a fairly innocent conversation, however, often spirals very quickly into a rant about how women only wear them because they’re after attention. They’re desperate. They want us to look. We need to pray for them because they need Jesus.

Whatever motivations that women wearing leggings have, I find that conversations like this set a dangerous precedent. The biggest problem here is not why women choose to wear leggings as pants or how Christian such a clothing choice may be, but that men don’t want to take responsibility for their own behavior. It’s not like this is a new phenomenon. Just look at Adam’s reaction the second God questioned him about eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Instead of stepping up and taking responsibility for his sin, Adam tried to pin the blame on that woman God gave him.’

What’s funny here is that, while playing tough guy about male responsibility, he completely punts on female responsibility. He continues to enlighten us:

‘One of the biggest problems with the argument that men are programmed to lust after a woman in skimpy clothes is that it makes women’s bodies out to be inherently sexual regardless of situation, context or intent. Women were made in the image of God just like men, and as such, they have purpose outside of mere sexual function. To reduce women’s bodies to nothing more than something for men to have sex with requires some very dangerous hermeneutical gymnastics with Genesis that I’m not comfortable entertaining. Women may be different from men in a number of ways, but despite our differences, we are still equals in the sight of God.’

‘While the world seems intent on hyper-sexualizing young women, I worry that misplaced messages of modesty are doing just as much harm. Is the church’s message coming across to women saying, “Men can’t control themselves when they want sex, and your bodies are for sex. Cover them up so you don’t look like you might want sex. If you have any feminine curves, make sure you hide those because even under clothes, men will see them and only want you for sex”? I can’t begin to imagine the level of insecurity and self doubt that comes from being raised hearing a message like that.’

It’s almost enough to make you think he’s never read Paul’s commands to women regarding modesty. After all, such teaching would be a ‘misplaced messages of modesty are doing just as much harm.’ He then, of course, can’t resist the classic White Knight tough talk:

‘As men, I say it’s time that we man up. Unlike Adam, let’s commit to accepting responsibility. Let’s guard our hearts and take our thought lives captive. It won’t be easy, and you won’t do it perfectly, but the great news is that the Gospel isn’t for perfect people.’

In a nutshell: Holding men accountable is necessary and proper; holding women accountable is misplaced and dangerous. This is cowardly advice: for fear of offending women, he won’t follow Paul and admonish women to be modest, thereby exposing them to substantial risk; immodesty is uncivilized behavior and it will invite uncivilized responses from at least some of these men. But rather than deliver an uncomfortable – and no doubt unwelcome – message to women, he’d rather play tough guy and slap the men around.

What do you think the chances are that a man who can’t bring himself to simply say ‘No’ to women wearing leggings in public would ever have the sack to say ‘No’ to his wife or daughter on anything. Coward. Focus on the Feminine delivers again.

I will say the yardstick cannot be “immodest attire is that which causes a man to sin with his eyes” as obviously men are responsible for their own actions and quite capable of lusting after women no matter how modestly they are dressed.

Obviously women’s dress has an influence, but saying “modest clothing is that which is no more likely to cause someone to sin than whatever everyone else is wearing” sounds very wishy washy and insufficiently strict.

Whom are you arguing with? Your very long comment doesn’t address the actual post, and contains quotes which you then disagree with but I can’t locate in the discussion. I can only assume you are either lost (intending to respond to someone else’s blog post), or find my essay troubling but can’t find a logical reason to argue with it, so you simply made other arguments up and addressed them instead.

Interestingly you aren’t the first. See thetruthisstrangerthanfiction above.

“but clearly our standards for modesty have changed when that’s considered normal for everyday wear”

That is not in and of itself a problem. Commandments about modesty exist only because of the fall. It is an artifact of living IN the world and directs Christians with how they are to comport themselves regarding the world. That is an everchanging standard, just like the admonition against using coarse language. Who defines coarse language? The sinful, fallen world we live in. Yet in this specific case, we are told to follow the worldly standards so as to be an example, not cause offense, or cause others to sin. I believe standards of dress are in the same category. The world should not say “That Christian man swears like a sailor” or “That Christian woman dresses like a prostitute” but in both cases the world’s changing standards are being applied.

“It is provocative”

Possibly.

” and it’s meant to be.”

Possibly, but it is not we who can see into the hearts of men.

“Woman can protest all they want that they’re dressing for themselves, or for comfort, but that’s mostly BS – they know what they’re doing, they know the effect it has on men, and that’s why they do it: sexual validation from men and an edge in the intersexual competition they have with other women. A lot of women seem to really crave “the male gaze” – despite what (mostly ugly) feminists say about it.””

Studies show women spend every bit as much time checking out the assets of the competition as men do, and much more time spent on accessories such as purses or shoes. In one sense, women dress more for the female gaze than the male gaze. The end result, as you point out, is the same.

I am not sure it is a sin to be sexually attracted to another person in and of itself.

If a young man and woman are not both sexually attracted to each other, they should not marry. If the attraction is one sided, one spouse is condemned to a lifetime of torment, misery, temptation, and sin.

This attraction must therefore be established before marriage and not through sex. That leaves physical appearance. Is it a sin for young people to dress in a manner that young people of the other gender finds attractive? (And this certainly strongly implies sexually) You might say yes, but that seems to be heading down the path that considers sex to be shameful and disgusting. Also, this is irrelevant from a moral standpoint, but good luck trying to get young people to do otherwise. I bring this up because any plan that ignores or runs contrary to humab nature is doomed to fail, and in my experience the Bible does a far more accurate job of assessing sinful human nature than modern enlightened man. I find it highly unlikely, therefore, that the Bible would advise Christians to order their lives in ways that are simply unworkable. For example, it does not command socialism. Is this veering too close to “God loves me and he wants me to be happy?” Perhaps. I bring it up to say that if an interpretation says “The Bible says young people should dress in such a way that no one could possibly find them sexually attractive” that interpretation should be considered highly suspect. I am not saying Lyn or anyone else here holds such a belief but I have seen it elsewhere.

And if some degree of sexual attraction is permitted through appearance and dress, then it becomes very difficult to draw a line, as you are dealing with wholly unquantifiable subjective feelings, an all you can really do is look at intent : but we are very good at rationalizing our intent.

You can’t entirely blame the ladies for being ignorant of the affect their visible bodies have. I hear what you’re saying Dalrock, and I agree that the naivete expressed here is stunning. I say that mostly because she’s f-ing married, how does a married woman not understand these things? Oh, you married ladies thought that your husband’s physical reaction to your display of yourself in skimpy clothes was a conscious decision, you thought he commanded himself into tumescence for your benefit?? lol…

Just don’t forget that women have been entirely lied to about male nature just as men have been lied to about female nature. To some degree, be it small, be it large, be it self-reinforced, they simply *don’t realize* that the female form is hard-coded into us as an arousal trigger.

Evening dress (the formal balls on a boat) has always been about peacocking.

Yes I like that term, peacocking. And of course, you are right.

[Young woman, if you want to wear Lulumon or that miniskirt, you better be skinny or fit, because ALL YOUR FLAWS SHOW,. The older clothing styles flattered more women because the hid more flaws. And yes, men notice both]

Yes, that is why the older women wore longer gowns. The “flaws” that might be seen would of course be on her bare-backside.

But I really like that term “peacocking” which brings me to a point that I didn’t bring in my original post. I think that women (even Christian women) want to “peacock” with each other way more than they do. Dalrock is correct about the social standing women have with each other. They want to keep score (in lots of different ways, not just who can get away with wearing the slutty attire) but the problem is, they are not afforded the luxury of having enough appropriate “locations” to do so. And why would a cruise ship be a more appropriate location for full-on-slutty-peacocking where-as a public nightclub in a city might not?

Safety

On a cruise ship, women can wear almost as slutty attire as they want safely since there is no risk of them being violated by a perverted monster/criminal. They are there (protected) by their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, whomever (and a pile of ship security) among ONLY strange people who have some money and ALL have a whole lot to lose, professional, law-abiding people. Big difference. When that cop in Canada told those girls to not dress like sluts, what was NOT said is that those slutty girls are quite often parading around like whores in environments where there is a greater possibility that they might be violated (like a whore.) That is not going to happen (ever) on a cruise ship. So….

…women (even the most modest of Christian women) feel much freer to safely peacock there.

Your post makes many excellent points. I am not attempting to address your post at all in the sense of refuting it. I am responding to a few particular points you and other commenters have raised, but primarily : “Yet the problem remains. Without a defined line of modesty women will drift towards all out nakedness in their competition for sexual attention”

I could not tell from the context if that line meant the problem exists for post feminism women in general, or is a problem for Christian women in particular that the church needs to solve by defining such a line (following on the heels of the talk about sin and the Christian blogger I thought the second) but my thoughts were (some of which you note as well, so please don’t view this as me ‘correcting’ your post)

1) No such line is defined in the Bible, complicating the issue for Christians.
2) The fact the line moves does not mean it does not exist
3) Given #1, the line is efffectively currently defined by the world, and thus will be changing.
4) I don’t think it is wise for churches to try to determine the precise contours of such a line.
5) It is a difficult subject and my own interpretation may be badly wrong

I completely agree that the sexual revolution and feminisn have made it much harder to figure out where that line is and for women to calibrate their behavior

I will say that historically, it does not seem to be the case that women’s clothes march inexorably towards oblivion, even in places with no Christian influence (ancient China and Japan) – although of course the line you mentioned could have been derived and imposed from other sources. Neither of these places were hotbeds of feminism, to say the least.

Thanks for the clarification dewave. I’m pressed for time so won’t quote and reply to specific quotes, but I’ll offer what hopefully will clarify my point some. I’m not trying to define the specific rules of modesty here, even though I point out how ridiculous this has become since the rules aren’t defined. If you can see the shape of a woman’s vagina, she is in a very real way naked. The only reason she doesn’t feel naked is because everyone is pretending she isn’t (hence the reference to the Emperors new clothes).

I’m addressing this on two levels. One is more secular/sociological. The other is from a Christian perspective. The two are related but not identical. Typically the line defining modesty we are missing is provided by older married women. Feminism erased that. This is what makes our time so different. I used Yiayia as a personification of this, but also included the Titus 2 quote showing that there is a biblical base for this as well. However, Yiayia is a feature of the patriarchy, and therefore it is appropriate for men to lead her and offer guidance there. But from a practical perspective Yiayia tends to be the best person to police this, and I think the reasons should be obvious. I’m not offering a ready packaged solution to turning our feminist drenched culture back to a patriarchy. I’m trying to describe what is going on and why it is misunderstood.

Part of the problem we have is the secular/sociological distinction of “slut” is different (but again related) to what is sinful. The problem is, when we try to acknowledge that not only men have temptation to sin, but women too (albeit in different ways), we end up unintentionally triggering a woman’s fear of being called a slut. This is a problem, and I think we should be sensitive to it. But it doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to women’s temptations/sin. It isn’t kind, and it isn’t loving.

Of course if women exercised their sexuality exclusively in marriage, there would be no quandary. If she dressed to please her husband and not draw glances from other men or other women he would be the standard of what is too “slutty” and what is pleasing to himself. The orientation matters.

The shoe on the other foot argument is interesting, but instead of men exposing ripped abs and pecs of muscle, an immodest man flaunts his wealth and the bulge in his wallet. “Hey do all these bills in my wallet make my ass look fat?” If one is trolling for trollops, he has gotta use the right bait. Same sin, different expression.

I am responding to a few particular points you and other commenters have raised, but primarily : “Yet the problem remains. Without a defined line of modesty women will drift towards all out nakedness in their competition for sexual attention”

I’m not quite sure what your response to me was supposed to mean, but to the extent that you think anyone is advocating a “dress code” that ignores human nature, you are wrong… or at least about me. Fun fact: during a break in my military service I was a teacher in a couple of Christian schools. The one I was in the longest had a dress code that had ONE item when the school was founded: “Dress modestly.”

It was an abject failure. The problem was mostly the girls. To the extent that the guys got in trouble it was because they dressed like ragamuffins, not Chippendale dancers. But the girls kept coming in dressed like sluts. Not all of them… not even most of them… but enough. So the school had to add a few rules: skirts must reach the knee, for example. Then of course, “Only the top button of a shirt/blouse may be unbuttoned.” That sort of thing. By the time I came and went the list was quite extensive. Why? Because the girls would constantly push the boundaries, and their parents would let them. So every time we thought we had solved the problem of girls in a Christian school dressing like whores, with Christian parents who were paying tuition out of their own pockets letting them do so, somebody would find some creative way to “display the goods” that we hadn’t thought of, and another line was added to the dress code. It was a huge pain in the neck, and a constant source of friction.

I and several others started advocating for school uniforms to take the leeway – and the guesswork – out of it. I haven’t been back for years so I don’t know how they finally resolved it, or if they did at all. But I can assure everyone that the girls who were the biggest offenders knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and that was why they were doing it.

I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that people should wear potato sacks or in such a way that it is impossible to tell the sex of the person being observed. It is recorded a few of times in the Bible that men could tell that a woman was beautiful just by looking at her (Like Rachel, Sarah, and Esther, for example) – and there is no indication that those women were dressed immodestly.

Look, I’m not going to be a liar or a hypocrite: the view from the back row of treadmills is hard not to appreciate, but I constantly have to make myself look elsewhere.

“”The problem for modern women is that feminists have succeeded in destroying the very protection they now crave.””

Yes sir!……but,they have big daddy government.They don’t need men.

@TFH

That link on “men losing their sex drive”…….great link.I can relate.I have a great sex drive.A lot of the wimminz that I meet kill it for me.About 2 years ago I commented on a “womyn cop” who asked me out.I told her straight up…”if I was to go out with a woman like you I would become the laughing stock among my friends,peers and business associates”…..and I was not kidding.The day that I start “banging” wimminz like that?…I might as well start “banging” men…….and that is not going to happen! I have met LOTS of women in the last 10 years that are nothing short of “boner killers”……but,they think they are HAWT???…….UGH!

“Part of the problem we have is the secular/sociological distinction of “slut” is different (but again related) to what is sinful. The problem is, when we try to acknowledge that not only men have temptation to sin, but women too (albeit in different ways), we end up unintentionally triggering a woman’s fear of being called a slut”

I appreciate the way you try to distinguish the real underlying issues and the vocabulary we should be using, compared ti how the world talks about things.

One example is the world using “objectification of women” as an attempt to talk about sin and lust without actually using those terms. I don’t think that is a term Christians should use , really.

And if the dress code is the uniform, the exact same girls will just resume unbuttoning blouses, or roll the skirts, or make cuts up the side of the skirt that is now knee length, or will tie the bottom of the shirt to show off the belly button, or will “accessorize”, etc, etc, etc.

I guess the “naughty catholic schoolgirl” stereotype exists for a reason.

Pointing out the complete lack of love, and the centrality of Grace in your writing, is not a “meaningless argument” dude…

Churchian tone policing. Did Jesus show a similar lack of love when He exposed the error of the Pharisees, or the spiritual harlotry of Jezebel? Was He just far to masculine? It would seem you think so. The Gospel is not a castration device.

Jeremy @ 2:10 pm:
“Just don’t forget that women have been entirely lied to about male nature just as men have been lied to about female nature.”

Except we keep telling them the truth. Men being men, we’re happy to correct women’s misconceptions about us but they never seem to listen. Women being told what they want to hear isn’t comparable with clueless men being misled by both feminists and normal women themselves. “But she told me she likes nice guys!”

Try it, girls. Ask us guys what we think is good, modest dress. Watch yourselves not do it.

As a result, we have a comical pattern where whenever anyone points out that something is immodest, the immediate retort is that the person who pointed this out wouldn’t have noticed if they hadn’t been looking. Only a pervert would notice such a thing.
—Dalrock

Yeah, the females caught in the act of sluttitude will bark that “only a pervert” line. But that line is one of their lies. A man whose libido button she’s pounding on* “would notice such a thing” too–that was her goal after all. Unless she is choosing to chase perverts, he’s no pervert. She is. The time has come for gentlemen to (1) call these licentious females out on what they’re doing and (2) stand with other gentlemen who do so too.

Custody of the eyes has gone from a reminder to men to avoid sin, to a cover for women to indulge in the counterpart sin. You have to admit this is a deviously clever tool to silence all discussion of modesty.

It’s devilishly clever but only works when no one reminds Ms. Jezebel-Wannabee that by leading others into sin she’s fitting herself for a millstone to wear in the big skinny dipping pond. That’ll either get the discussion of modesty going again or silence the advocates of immodesty.

Immodest dress is that which calls prurient attention to oneself. Because females are so easily tempted to do that and rarely seem to know (or want to know) where the line is* then to avoid the near occasion of sin they must dress to avoid calling any undue attention to themselves. There is the standard of modest dress. It is easy to follow, really. Only females who wish to crowd up right on the edge of calling prurient attention to themselves would believe feminist Leora Tanenbaum’s line that there is a “razor-thin tightrope to not be a prude, not be a slut”. And only the females who desire to go past the edge as far as ‘plausible deniability’ will take them really buy Tanenbaum’s cover story that females must “be sexy but just the right amount, not show that they’re exerting any effort”. The adults know Tanenbaum is selling baloney.

Large numbers of women are now in both a literal and figurative sense naked, and the only thing covering them is the cultural taboo against acknowledging it.

Well said, sir. Female displays of nakedness, near-nakedness (acres of exposed skin), simulated nakedness (clothes that pretend to hide but show vivid outlines of her sexual parts), and potential nakedness (loose buttons, open zippers, fallen shoulder straps) are not limited to the red carpet at televised award shows (e.g., Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, and Golden Globes). There are females indulging in such displays almost everywhere, including at work, school, and worship services.

* She is, of course, poking at and pounding on the libido of every man in sight. Hers is a form of sexual harassment that won’t shut up. When a female tries the “but he likes to look” excuse, I answer “Aha, so you admit you know what you’re doing.”

** How many times have we heard a female who has been called on for crossing the line into immodesty cry how dare her betters force her to choose between her quasi-nakedness and a burqa? I answer that she’s crazy if she really thinks those are the only choices she has. It’s not that I “don’t get it” it’s that I’m not buying it.

Montana Rep. David Moore’s bill to restrict the wearing of tight-fitting clothes has been shot down. The Montana legislative panel unanimously moved to table the bill on Wednesday. The committee apparently laughed about the bill. No discussion was allowed before a voice vote to table it.

dewave: FWIW (and that’s likely little as I’m pretty new commenting here), I found your comments to be humble and well-considered. They did….broaden the topic a bit, which I think is why some commentators were skeptical of your motives, but your response to criticism in particular demonstrated character.

I don’t have a point to add at the moment, but I think too little space is given to simple agreement in the comments. As a touch of background, I grew up in a conservative Christian school environment that had a strict dress code, much discussion about modesty, and showed us films promoting courtship instead of dating. So though I may have kicked against that a bit, your perspectives and positions are familiar argumentative territory for me, and nothing rings false.

I disagree with you about how easy it would be for girls to flaunt the dress code if all the students had to wear school uniforms. That is up the faculty to police it, and it’s not all that hard as long as the will is present. I spent about a quarter-century in (military) uniforms, and uniforms make it VERY easy to see if someone is dressed incorrectly. You’re either wearing it or you’re not. Your buttons are either buttoned or they are not. A solid hem skirt that suddenly sprouts a slit will stand out like a sore thumb immediately.

Take it from someone who’s been through hundreds of uniform inspections as both the inspector and the one being inspected: it’s not that hard to spot infractions.

Japanese misanthropes march against ‘passion capitalism’ of Valentine’s Day

Amid charges of misogyny – during previous demonstrations its members railed against “housewives who decide Japan’s future” while their hapless husbands go out to work – the group mixes Marxist rhetoric with disdain for anything resembling romance.

“The blood-soaked conspiracy of Valentine’s Day, driven by the oppressive chocolate capitalists, has arrived once again,” it said on its website.

‘One example is the world using “objectification of women” as an attempt to talk about sin and lust without actually using those terms. I don’t think that is a term Christians should use , really.’

We can speak in a language many people understand. Objectification of people is using people only for your own ends. Treating them like you would any other appliance instead of realizing they also have a mind, heart, body, and soul.

@Dalrock
This is a foolish term [“objectification of women”] on a number of levels. It is feminism dressed up as Christianity.

I’m new to the red pill and older so playing catch up. This term comes up a lot in Catholic circles when discussing Theology of the Body and in and out of marriage context. I had always assumed it originated from JPII. Can you comment further on this sometime?

@Dalrock
This is a foolish term [“objectification of women”] on a number of levels. It is feminism dressed up as Christianity.

I’m new to the red pill and older so playing catch up. This term comes up a lot in Catholic circles when discussing Theology of the Body and in and out of marriage context. I had always assumed it originated from JPII. Can you comment further on this sometime?

I’m not familiar with how Catholics use the term, but from my experience it is typically assuming that romantic love purifies sex, and that women don’t want to be desired in a raw sexual way. Both are untrue. Note how often the Bible describes sex with animal imagery. In Proverbs 5 when it is instructing men on the proper way to channel their sexual desires, it says:

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be intoxicated with her love.
20 Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife?
Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman?

Raw sexual desire is good if it is channeled to your own wife. There is no need to “purify” it with romance. What makes sex moral is marriage, not romantic love.

Men, correct me if I’m wrong. This is for the women. I’m an older woman, so if you’re younger than 44 1/2′ listen up. 😉 Location means nothing. Tight fitting, low-cut, or short is immodest anywhere. Panties and a bra don’t magically become modest with the introduction of water molecules or excercise equipment. Our standards are: sleeves (although some sleeveless stuff can be okay, if you have almost anything on top, this accents it), loose-fitting dresses, skirts or tunics with pants (all my girls are young, so leggings are a must) and no cleavage even when you bend over. We also have them wear undershirts–girl’s shirts, even little girl’s shirts are often loose at the neck and when they bend over, you can see right down them. Boys shirts aren’t like this–weird, huh? (Actually, that is really, really sick, but anyway.) My girls are precious to us and we intend to protect them as much as possible. We want them to know they are to be valued for more than just their bodies, and sexuality and sensuality is for their husband only. When they have swimming lessons, we have them wear dance outfit with a t-shirt underneath (these are often swimsuit material with built-in shorts) or the swim t-shirts and short (for surfing and boogie-boarding). It is a challenge to be modest in today’s world, but it can certainly be done.

Mom, I don’t think you are wrong about any of that. Unfortunately, (as I have seen in the gyms, on the cruise ships, and on the beaches) people who think like the way we do, are vastly outnumbered. And because this behavior is so commonplace and given a sort of “moral cover/acceptance”, my sin (as it were) is just accepting these differences based solely on location. I can’t change the world. All I can do is take care of my quarter of it (my family.)

I guess the way I look at it is this: when the US Women’s Soccer team defeated China in 1999 and Brandi Chastain whipped off her shirt and celebrated in her sports bra for the whole world to see, did you instinctively respect her for it, or were you ashamed of her? It is subtle moments like these that “move the line.”

There are companies that make swimming suits for girls that are more modest. Use Google to find them. Some parents buy them for the modesty, others by them because they cover up more of the shoulders, etc., and reduce sunburn.

Sending the kids to a public swimming pool wearing dance attire instead of swimming suits will make them the object of jokes, and could potentially lead to a situation where they won’t internalize your standards at all, because they have childhood memories of being ridiculed over their clothing.

I admire your goal, but cringe at your methods. A one-piece tank suit should be perfect for swimming lessons. Have the girls wear robes over them on their way to the pool if you want.

I’m new to the red pill and older so playing catch up. This term comes up a lot in Catholic circles when discussing Theology of the Body and in and out of marriage context. I had always assumed it originated from JPII. Can you comment further on this sometime?

Whatever JPII meant when he used it, and whether he used it prudently or not, it is used frequently in Catholic circles similarly to how Dalrock describes above. The thought that follows from this is that our society would be sexually whole if only we followed women’s true desires; that whatever appears to be sexual impurity in a woman is a result not of her free choice, but coercion by another; that her truest of true desires is only to be loved; and then thrown into the mix somewhere is that men’s truest of true desires is to view pornography and objectify women.

Whatever JPII meant when he used it, and whether he used it prudently or not, it is used frequently in Catholic circles similarly to how Dalrock describes above. The thought that follows from this is that our society would be sexually whole if only we followed women’s true desires; that whatever appears to be sexual impurity in a woman is a result not of her free choice, but coercion by another; that her truest of true desires is only to be loved; and then thrown into the mix somewhere is that men’s truest of true desires is to view pornography and objectify women.

This explains a lot about my experience with the RCC. I mentioned this in yesterdays post as well. The priest at our last Catholic parish was obsessed with harpooning men who use porn, while ignoring the fact that half the women in the pews were dressed like they were on the way to star in such films.

I am not interested in a Catholic vs Protestant debate. Please feel free to delete this post if you think it would lead us down that path. But I think this post has merit given this discussion about attire.

Scott & bucky,

The thought that follows from this is that our society would be sexually whole if only we followed women’s true desires; that whatever appears to be sexual impurity in a woman is a result not of her free choice, but coercion by another;

I’m not Roman Catholic but sometimes (particularly around this time of year) I wonder what this current Pope (given he is a resident of Argentina, the first Pope from South America) thinks about JPII and his “Theology of the Body”, given that the Tuesday before Ash Wednesday is right around the corner and a certain percentage of women in Catholic Brazil are going to parade around naked (wearing paint only) in public and NOT because they were talked into it by men? I know that is only a small percentage of Rio, a very tiny percentage of Brazilians, I think I said as much on this blog. But I don’t remember hearing any Popes condemning these actions or holding women (or even men) to account for it. I don’t know. I would think this particular Pope would be more vocal about it.

@Mom.
For small kids, full coverage swimming and exercise is easy in NZ and OZ because we have had to over time make SPF40 clothing so kids can play outside without getting sunburnt. We have the highest rate of melanoma in the world — anglocelts under an ozone hole (I can walk around without any sunscreen all day in the USA and do not burn. 15 minutes in NZ at noon and I do).

And this is in a country which traditionally let little kids run into the surf naked, watched by Dad (no man will wear speedos at the beach unless gay) and Mum. Now the kid is covered elbow to knee or there will be comments to your face that you are abusing your kid.

Similarly, hats and long sleeves have come back in school uniforms.

Swimming? One term: rash vest. Designed for men first (and women) and worn by pro surfers — so you don’t have your skin sliced to ribbons when you get dumped into a coral reef. Now worn by all when surfing, or (where I live) a 8 mil wetsuit.

But short shorts at a running meet? If I’m there, I’m running and trying to keep ahead of people and I’m not concentrating on their but. If I’m hiking well (1) you wear more (we have to wear gaiters in NZ due to the amount of mud we have and (2) I’m concentrating on taking photos of the scenery. Unless you flaunt yourself. Which I don’t want as I compose my photos without people.

Our society changed: we still peacock, but when the inside of your house is around 50 to 60 degrees (as it is in NZ and the UK for three quarters of the year) you wear more to say warm.

@ScottMarcusD- I am glad you have the patience and the fortitude to read through those CAF posts. Once in a while I go to a link you leave and read a little. The advice on there crushes my spirit.

It certainly gives insight as to why the world is going where it’s going.

Many people have double standards that I can put up with, but many CAF members and their arrogant hypocrisy and painfully obvious self-contradictions are another thing entirely. I remember a member on CAF who held out against 20 or so people in a debate, never once losing his cool, while the others attacking him (pretty much literally) were resorting to fallacy after fallacy (plus many spurious reports of rules violations – think feminists pulling fire alarms, etc etc). People may say “strength in numbers,” but it came across more as “weakness in numbers.”

—

If you ever want/need help with tag-teaming a certain thread, just leave a note here, and I’ll see what I can do. I still have an account there for PMs.

Lyn87, this is true, however it would be dishonest of me. In the vernacular as used by Catholics of every rite (capital C) I would be tacitly suggesting that I am in communion with Rome, which I no longer am.

In fact, come to think of it, my handle itself is misleading. “SerbCath” would be better “SerbOrth.” Altough, since I am pretty much open about my online identity nowadays, I might as well not try to be coy at all.

For a very short while Mychael and I tried to tag team with the alternative viewpoint, but it is just too overwhelming.

While it’s fun to hassle radical feminists and the like, they serve a good purpose. They’re often so bold in their overreach that normal people can’t help but come away offended by their hubris and their complete lack of maturity and self-awareness. The more dangerous people at Catholic Answers are the seemingly “normal” ones who tickle your ear with reasonable sounding feminism. Xanthippe has honed this skill to a fine point. She’s such a clever and devious feminist, that I actually have learned a great deal from her rhetoric.

When you go over there, don’t post direct links to this forum or those like it. It’s why I was banned, and they were justified in banning me.https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/sweet-spirits/
They have a “no spamming” rule, and I was technically in violation of it. If you want to refer people to articles elsewhere, encourage them to “google dalrock” or something like that.

Most importantly, keep it fun. If they start to wear on you, take a break from trolling them. They’ll think that they “won” only to have you show up again when they say something ridiculous, weeks later. It drives them crazy.

“They have a “no spamming” rule, and I was technically in violation of it. If you want to refer people to articles elsewhere, encourage them to “google dalrock” or something like that.”

Well, for the public forum. There’s no apparent limit for links in a PM.

(I’ve created another account for general forum use, so just let me know 🙂 – over time the inanity of the comments starts to annoy me and I feel like a have to respond, lest people walk away thinking Catholicism is now a Marxist enterprise.)

As long as they lays claim to being the “universal” church, I figure they have to take all that goes with it. Don’t like people like me calling myself part of the universal church? No problem… they are free to change their name to exclude people like me, then. YMMV, of course.

Given that BEL (et al) comment at CAF (with impunity, I should add), I don’t think CAF mods are going to give you a hard time (if that’s your concern).

Agreed. Bear in mind that Blue Eyed Lady self-identifies as an atheist (as I do myself). Most people ought to find it a little strange that such a person is allowed to constantly spread radical feminism as though it were authentic Catholic doctrine.

As an aside: The domain is registered in the San Diego area. Concerned Catholics and others ought to write polite letters to Msgr. Steven Callahan in care of the diocese office: St. Francis Center, 1667 Santa Paula, San Diego, 92111-6810. I did this myself, about a year ago, and got a form letter back. Even so, It might help if people expressed their concern about the forums, which have, in the past, encouraged nice families to dissolve through divorce (some of this is screenshotted on my blog, mind you).

Running a divorce preparation program is, last I checked, contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Catholic faith, which Catholic Answers pretends to uphold… so letting the authorities know about this ongoing chicanery is only fair play.

Boxer, I wouldn’t presume that such would make much of a difference. Karl Keating, the owner of CA, regularly appears at the FSSP Latin Mass Church in San Diego. If they do not rebuke him, why would the diocese?

This is something I’ve been thinking about now and then, but Dalrock managed to brilliantly figure out. I read that article The Truth About Sluts on my own, but it took Dalrock’s post for me to see clearly what’s going on.

I would say, though, that there’s not just confusion about where the line between sexy and slutty goes, but something of a tug-of-war, and it pertains not just to showing off in dress but also to actually having sex. In view of that, such notions as “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”, “What happens in Cancun doesn’t count”, “I’m technically a virgin, I’ve just taken it in the ass” make perfect sense. They all seek to shift the sluthood boundary so that the woman in question is on the better side of it.

The third example, that of the born-again Christian technical virgin girl, is particularly revealing since it shows that the same phenomenon of boundary-blurring and boundary-shifting takes place regardless of where the boundary is in absolute terms. The technical virgin girl would count as an absolute prude in, say, a liberal party college setting, but is still straddling the sluthood boundary in her own social context where everyone nominally adheres to notions of Christian abstinence.

Oh, and after posting my first comment, I actually read through those blog posts by Veronica Partridge. If you do, note how it starts with a big disclaimer that she’s not judging anyone for their choices or trying to dictate what others can do, just sharing the reasons for her personal choice. Still, shitstorm ensues.

Can you imagine a blogger making a personal choice in the opposite direction would cause a shitstorm even on the same order of magnitude? Heck, can you imagine a blogger making such a blog post ever feeling the need to open with a huge non-judgement disclaimer?

Of course, part of it is just the first rule of sex-positive feminism: Nobody is ever allowed to judge or criticize any woman for any sexual choice she makes. But part of it, I suspect, can be viewed in terms of a simple optimization problem: A woman derives sexual market benefits from dressing (and acting) in a sexually appealing way, but there’s a tipping point after which too much of it starts to count as slutty. Thus, imagine a graph, with sexiness on the x-axis and the derived benefit on the y-axis. The relationship is a curve with a peak somewhere, and it’s at the point at the x-axis where the sluthood boundary goes.

What I suspect is that the curve is highly asymmetrical and falls quite sharply after the peak. Being a certain distance to the right of the peak is way worse than being the same distance to the left of it. Being seen as a slut is way worse than being seen as not revealing as much as one could get away with. Which is why any action that would (deliberately or not) cause more women to become viewed as sluts would inevitably be more strongly opposed than one that would make that which previously was considered slutty to become socially acceptable. And given such an imbalance of forces, it’s no surprise that the sluthood boundary has been steadily moving rightwards over the decades since the sexual revolution.

‘I’m not familiar with how Catholics use the term, but from my experience it is typically assuming that romantic love purifies sex, and that women don’t want to be desired in a raw sexual way.’

Granted I don’t have the same experiences…but I have yet to hear from a Catholic standpoint that romantic love does anything like that. All I hear about is that sacrificial love like we see from Jesus is what purifies.

Besides God himself put in women being desired by her husband in Genesis. This has been blurred by women being desired by any man that triggers it regardless if they are married to him or not.